Lol, I love how some people take simple complaints almost as seriously as an insult to their mother - there simply isn't any need to be so defensive if you've bought an Xbox or a PC - I DON'T CARE.

Yes I knew the DLC would be locked, and yes I still chose to buy the game. That's not my point. I'm just saying that the DLC SHOULDN'T be locked, it should be available across all platforms which host the game. Of course I'm living in a utopian world, where beer is cheap and pigs can fly, but I'm simply expressing a dream. Untwist your panties, people! I wish someone would start a gaming website where the merest HINT of fanboyism gets you banned. Sigh, there goes my crazy imagination again...

@dutchdemons - no, I haven't been gaming for 35+ years. I'm 29, have been gaming since I was 6, and have owned every single console from each generation at one point or another. I gave up on the 360 6 months after release due to the fact that 2 of my consoles RROD'd on me, and purchased the PS3 soon after its own release. I hope that this is acceptable enough for you for me to be allowed to comment on these hallowed forums, o great one... Reply0

As I stated previously, yes I would boycott it. I don't agree with this practice, whatever the company, whatever the system, whatever the game. I understand perfectly what you mean when you talk about being 'denied the game', particularly with a AAA title like Metal Gear Solid, but I also think it is things like exclusivity that gives a console its 'personality', so to speak. I couldn't imagine playing Mario on a console other than a Nintendo one, the same goes for Halo on the Xbox. Take Sonic for example - I've played every Sonic game released (unfortunately), and it just feels...different...on a console which wasn't Sega's own.

I'm just pissed off at this DLC situation - you pay for a game, you should get access to everything the developer offers for that game. Even things like additional levels only being offered on one system (a la Mirror's Edge) annoys me. It's unfair, and it creates a system where people have to buy multiple consoles with multiple copies of the same game just to experience it fully. It's not just the fault of the publishers - game developers are to blame here as well, for allowing their heads to be swayed at the prospect of easy money, and condoning this practice.

Bethesda might not notice the money I won't be spending on their products in the future, but I really believe that this business practice is wrong. Reply0

Thanks for an intelligent observation! I was starting to despair of some of the people who have been posting on EG recently....

I agree in principle with you saying that all games should be multi-platform, but I really don't mind with some games being locked exclusively to a particular console. Halo, Mario, GOW, these are all iconic games which immediately conjure up the names of the respective console makers, and I think it's good that we have the choice.

I also agree that hardware is likely to become less and less important as time goes on - but I hope that there is still a level of individuality in whatever platforms will be released in the future. I still wish that there were an independent agency governing games and DLC, a group who really aren't answerable to the gaming industry, but regulate themselves and have the interests of consumers at the front of their minds.

Then again, I also wish that I were 6 foot 5, with a Ferrari and a string of supermodel girlfriends. Sigh. Reply0

I don't WANT the Xbox version, or the PC version. That's my point. I already paid for 1 version of it, the DLC should be standard across the board. I shouldn't have to purchase another console/computer just in order to play a game's DLC.

Sigh, guess I'm the only one pissed off about this.

Nevermind. We'll see what happens with The Elder Scrolls 5.

@ AphoticCosmos - do you really have to reduce it to another retarded fanboy argument? I've got nothing against the Xbox, but it doesn't appeal to me. Reply0

No, this lies squarely at the feet of the game developers. I can understand games themselves being locked to a system - for a company to pay money to ensure that it remains exclusive to their own particular console. But to release a game multi-platform, then only create DLC for a couple of selected platforms because Microsoft 'convinced' them to? That's bullshit. I'd call shenanigans if it was the other way round as well, if Sony ever managed to organise itself well enough to get the upper hand in a game deal.

I'm sick and tired of getting my balls squeezed left and right by greedy, cock-munching corporate execs who no longer give a flying fuck about the quality of the games they produce. Fallout 3 on the PS3 was a hideous, glitchy mess when it was first released, and we had to wait for a patch just so the game didn't hang horrendously every time someone logged in on your friends list. There should be some kind of system, not governed by software or hardware manufacturers, that ensures that gamers are protected when they purchase products, whether it's from platform-locked DLC, or from half-assed game coding.

Bethesda could publish a game based on fellating monkeys and still see it enter the charts at number one. Why? Because of people like me who have supported them for years and years with software purchases. But as soon as some prick in a suit waves around enough cash, the fans are cast aside as a sacrifice to the almighty dollar.

I won't be buying another Bethesda game, or any other game from a company who condones this practice. Instead, I offer them my balls to suck on.